contributor_view

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: the deterministic mapping from analyze_pr signals to a fixed set of 5 named action outcomes, plus the version. It does not disclose whether inputs need a live PR, latency, or failure modes, so it is informative but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and output questions are front-loaded, and the Args/Returns sections are scannable. The 15-key Returns list is somewhat long, but with no output schema it is justified rather than padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotation-gap in the safety domain, the description supplies both the argument inventory and the return-key inventory, so an agent knows what it will get back. The main residual gap is the ambiguous body/description parameters and the absence of any live-input requirement note.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does enumerate all 10 args. But most entries are near-tautological (title='PR title', author='PR author username'), and the body vs description distinction ('PR body' vs 'Extended description') is left ambiguous. It adds format hints only for repo (org/name) and author_association, so it partially compensates for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('action decision for a single PR') and immediately enumerates the exact 5 actions produced. The 'contributor-facing' framing cleanly distinguishes it from the maintainer_view sibling, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The quoted questions ('Is my PR ready to submit? What should I fix?') imply when a contributor would call it, and the reference to mapping analyze_pr signals hints at its relationship to that sibling. However there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative or exclusion guidance, leaving the choice between contributor_view, analyze_pr, coach_pr and triage_pr to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.